The defendant is charged [in count __]
with criminal mischief in the third degree. The statute defining this offense
reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminal
mischief in the third degree when, having no reasonable ground to believe
that (he/she) has a right to do so, (he/she) damages tangible property of
another by negligence involving the use of any potentially harmful or
destructive force or substance, such as, but not limited to, fire,
explosives, flood, avalanche, collapse of building, poison gas or
radioactive material.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Damaged propertyThe first element is that the
defendant damaged tangible property of another. "Tangible" means that the
property is something that can be felt and seen. The statute is concerned with
actual, physical damage to property.

[<Insert if applicable:> This
"other person" need not have had a complete, absolute, or exclusive right to the
property. It is enough if (he/she) had a right to possess it or shared some such
right with someone else.]

Element 2 - NegligenceThe second element is that the damage
to the property was caused by the defendant's negligence involving the use of a
potentially harmful force or substance. <Describe specific allegations.>

Common-law negligence is the failure
to use reasonable care under the circumstances. Reasonable care is the care
that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same circumstances. Thus,
negligence is doing something that a reasonably prudent person would not do
under the circumstances, or failing to do what a reasonably prudent person would
do under the circumstances. The use of proper care in a given situation is the
care that an ordinarily prudent person would use in view of the surrounding
circumstances. In determining the care that a reasonably prudent person would
use in the same circumstances, you should consider all of the circumstances
which were known or should have been known to the defendant at the time of the
conduct in question. Whether care is reasonable depends upon the dangers that a
reasonable person would perceive in those circumstances. It is common sense
that the more dangerous the circumstances, the greater the care that ought to be
exercised.

Before determining whether the
defendant used reasonable care, you must determine whether the defendant owed
another person a duty of care. The test of the existence of a duty to use
reasonable care is to be found in the foreseeability that harm of the general
nature as that which occurred may result if that care is not exercised. Therefore, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in
view of the circumstances as (he/she) knew them or in the reasonable exercise of
(his/her) faculties should have known them, should have reasonably anticipated
that unless (he/she) used reasonable care, harm of the same general nature as
that which did occur would or could occur.

Element 3 - No rightThe third element is that the
defendant had no reasonable ground to believe that (he/she) had a right to
damage the property. A "reasonable ground to believe" means that a reasonable
person in the defendant's situation, viewing the circumstances from the
defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant damaged the tangible property of
another, 2) the damage was caused by the defendant's negligence involving the
use of any potentially harmful or destructive force or substance, specifically <insert
specific allegations>, and 3) (he/she) had no reasonable ground to believe
that (he/she) had a right to damage the property.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
criminal mischief in the third degree, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.